3 ms·
> Without opinion on the relative damage of both, I'll note that considering this a logical statement is really flawed. I can't understand what you are saying
by javert 5y ago
> Without opinion on the relative damage of both, I'll note that considering this a logical statement is really flawed.
I can't understand what you are saying here.
> You can pretty much always find "studies arguing for both sides" on an issue, but that doesn't mean much in and of itself.
Just trying to cut off the expected "studies show X" comments before they get started. Because if studies aren't definitive, which they rarely are, there isn't any point in raising that. And a simpler way to explain this is "studies conflict."
- ska 5y ago> I can't understand what you are saying here. My point was that you are actually very rarely in the case that studies are in conflict to the point that the best you can do is personal experience. It's the exception, not the rule. To paraphrase Churchill: science is the worst system we have for understanding these sorts of things, except for all the others.
- javert 5y ago> My point was that you are actually very rarely in the case that studies are in conflict to the point that the best you can do is personal experience I didn't make my point very clearly, but my actual view is that only the researchers who perform a study and their immediate scientific peers are able to determine whether a study is reliable and what conclusions can actually be drawn from it. I say this as someone who worked in academic research. > To paraphrase Churchill: science is the worst system we have for understanding these sorts of things, except for all the others. Preaching to the choir, there. I'm not arguing against science.